do you contend that Torres and Rome’s hits weren’t illegal? That Burrows wasn’t penalized for flopping?
Nope, don’t deny it at all.
But, as others have noted in this very thread, those illegal hits were no worse than others that get let go on a daily basis. I’m not arguing that the Canucks are a bunch of choirboys, but to refer to them as the “slimiest, dirtiest and most flopping team in the league” suggests some rather large blinkers.
I understand the sentiment; i, too, sometimes emphasize the crimes of the teams and the players i don’t like. But the emotional response isn’t always reflective of reality.
I contend that Rome’s hit should have been a 2 minute penalty, and would have been if the opposing player had not been admiring his pass, and was looking where he was going like a good player should.
I also contend that Burrows did not “flop” - he was slew-footed and had his skate knocked out from under him. You’ve never actually been on skates, have you? That was one of the most idiotic penalties I have seen. “two minutes for being tripped”
Further, I contend that when a player sticks his fingers in your mouth, and then whines to the ref like a little girl when he gets a boo-boo, that player should be mocked.
Yeah, but can you say it with a straight face? The hit was well after the pass, and Rome had to have seen the pass go across the ice before he lined up and aimed high on a guy that had no reason to be looking for a hit much less one aimed at his head that a guy left his feet to deliver.
The Rome hit on Horton is the textbook definition of an illegal hit. It was late. It was high. Rome saw the pass go across and then lined up and moved for the hit. Where Horton was looking is irrelevant. He had no reason to expect a hit at all.
Ladies and gentleman, your Vancouver Canucks. I think it’s clear who the neutral folks ought to be pulling for.
This is a weird attitude to me. I am from Vancouver Island so I want the home team to win. I certainly don’t hate the Boston team. They want to win just as much as the Canucks. And I certainly don’t think poorly of someone because they want Boston to win.
Oh well, enjoy your anger I guess.
I’m confused. I was under the impression that my Bruins were the slimiest, dirtiest and all that other bad stuff team in the league?
I definitely have to give the edge of illegal head butts to the Canucks. In almost every instance, Boston’s head butts have been legal.
As for the biting, it is true that Vancouver leads the league in bites, but don’t forget that Boston is actually coached on getting the fingers into their opponent’s mouth (including the rumor that they soak their hands in chocolate before every game to increase the odds of getting bit).
I think you’re misinterpreting. The homerism on the Vancouver side attempting to justify and minimize a patently dangerous and illegal hit is what I’m highlighting. I’m not angry, it’s just that there’s no scenario where an unbiased observer can deduce that Vancouver hasn’t been the one acting outside the rules and doing things generally frowned upon by the public to the greatest degree.
Here is a video I would love to hear your comments on regarding the Torres hit. As for the Rome hit, I could link to many hits against Canucks this playoffs that were equally dangerous but didn’t have equally devastating results due to sheer luck. Canucks are no better or worse in terms of on-ice class than any other team in the league.
Is that what you’re claiming to be?
Based on that? No. And the Canucks are pretty far from the dirtiest team out there. Dirtiest team left in the playoffs? Possibly, but there are only two teams left so they don’t have to work too hard.
Yes, well I always find it amusing when folks whose sole hockey experience consists of watching a few games a year around finals time.
Come on back when you’ve laced up some skates and actually played a few games, mkay?
At least Game 5 was fun to watch; for lots of the game the players seemed to forget about being macho idiots and actually played, you know, hockey.
But since I never played or even skated, I guess I can’t have an opinion, huh?
I’m not a Canucks fan but they don’t strike me as being any more dirty a team than most.
The Rome hit on Horton was dirty and the suspension was justified, but it’s what, the 500th dirty hit this year? 1000th? I’ve lost count. How on earth can anyone suggest this problem is limited to the Canucks?
The head of discipline for the series does not agree with you:
"MIKE MURPHY: This has nothing to do with Rule 48. This is just an interference penalty, an interference hit. If it was immediate after he released the puck, it would be a legal hit. We have them all the time. "
According to him, the hit was late, but otherwise not dirty.
In that case four games for a late hit seems pretty steep.
I’m gonna agree with Ike. Four games, the longest suspension in the history of the finals, is a bit severe for interference. If it was simply an interference call, why did he get suspended? Did Mr. Murphy mistake minutes for games? We gonna start seeing some two game suspensions for firing the puck over the glass? I’m not saying your quote is inaccurate, but I think Murphy is full of shit and he knows it.
[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic]
Yes, well I always find it amusing when folks whose sole hockey experience consists of watching a few games a year around finals time.
Come on back when you’ve laced up some skates and actually played a few games, mkay?
[/QUOTE]
Please. This is ice hockey. Not brain surgery. And do we really even need the “I’ve watched/played more hockey than you ever will” method of e-penis measurement? I totally get that you disagree, but let’s not start pretending that it’s because you (or any of us for that matter)know the sport better than anyone else based on watching it or even playing it. We’re not assembling a particle accelerator here. We’re chatting about a sport on the intertubes.
Hopefully this kind of ‘all over the map’ discipline will end when Campbell is gone. Here is a list of all suspensions handed out this year. Rome is only the second player to be suspended for a late hit. The other player, Scottie Upshall, only got 2 games. Of course Chara wasn’t suspended for his late ‘interference’ hit.
I can understand how the players are confused with the lack of consistency. Campbell has always said that the league looks at each situation individually. Of course that means that the difference in penalty comes from the league interpretation of intent. In the vast majority of suspendable acts it is impossible to tell the players intent. How did Murphy know that Romes’ intentions were more sinister than Campbell thought of Upshalls’ intent?
Why you little…
I’ve assembled more particle accelerators than you’ve had hot breakfasts!
Yes, good point. I was just frustrated by the “your team is the dirtiest to ever play the game” hyperbole.
I look forward to the end of this sentence.